Welcome to “That’s A Wrap,” our attempt to um, wrap up the 2009-10 season. Sit back. Relax. Grab some popcorn. Get your read on.

I’m not sure how many of y’all are familiar with John Hollinger’s player efficiency rating (PER) for the NBA. So let’s go to a quick explanation of the metric from the man himself before we get started:

The player efficiency rating (PER) is a rating of a player’s per-minute productivity.

To generate PER, I created formulas — outlined in tortuous detail in my book “Pro Basketball Forecast” — that return a value for each of a player’s accomplishments. That includes positive accomplishments such as field goals, free throws, 3-pointers, assists, rebounds, blocks and steals, and negative ones such as missed shots, turnovers and personal fouls.

Two important things to remember about PER are that it’s per-minute and is pace-adjusted.

Because it’s a per-minute measure, it allows us to compare, say, Jordan Farmar and Derek Fisher, even though there is a disparity in their minutes played.

I also adjust each player’s rating for his team’s pace, so that players on a slow-paced team like Detroit aren’t penalized just because their team has fewer possessions than a fast-paced team such as Golden State.

Make sense?

Well, Hollinger, for the first time, has busted out PER for the college ranks — something he released last week. They revealed some interesting things. For instance, DeMarcus Cousins’ PER of 35.45 — league average PER is 15.00 in the NBA, and I’d assume that would follow for the NCAA — ranks No. 1 in the country. Teammate John Wall, the surefire No. 1 pick in this summer’s NBA Draft?

He didn’t crack the Top 100.

(more…)

Welcome to “That’s A Wrap,” our attempt to um, wrap up the 2009-10 season. Sit back. Relax. Grab some popcorn. Get your read on. All stats on this post come from the indispensable Kenpom.com.

The Hoosiers lost 11 straight Big Ten games this season. That’s enough to make a grown man cry, or at least throw his remote at the TV. But amidst all the turnovers and scoring drought, the missed layups and defensive lapses, there’s one thing to keep in mind: this team improved in pretty much every significant statistical category. Follow along on the magical journey.

(Oh, and for a point of reference: there were 344 Division I teams in 2008-09, and 347 this past season.)

+ Adj. Offensive Efficiency 2008-2009: 97.7 (228th in the country)
+ Adj. Offensive Efficiency 2009-2010: 100.2 (187th in the country)

Let’s be honest: 2.5 points more per 100 possessions — adjusted, that is — is far from a vast improvement. But it’s an improvement nonetheless. With IU’s turnover and opponent block rate still sky high this season — not to mention lower-percentage shots and scoring droughts running rampant — IU just wasn’t able to take a huge step up in this category.

With Mo Creek back, everyone else a year older and hopefully a better handle of the ball going forward, IU should be primed to take a larger leap next year.

+ Adj. Defensive Efficiency 2008-2009: 101.8 (178th in the country)
+ Adj. Defensive Efficiency 2009-2010: 100.7 (159th in the country)

Again. Not much improvement here. The Hoosiers only allowed one less point per 100 possessions from Tom Crean’s first year to his second. Size, athleticism, communication and inexperience were all culprits this season.

+ Adj. Tempo 2008-09: 66.5 possessions per game (164th in the country)
+ Adj. Tempo 2009-10: 68.8 possessions per game (96th in the country)

This is often times inconsequential: Wisconsin’s adj. tempo this season was 60.2 possessions per game, ranking them 340th in the country. But the Badgers get it done. Bo Ryan’s style of play is pass, pass, pass until the shot clock winds down and you find the best shot. As such, they don’t have time to gobble up more possessions per game; they use every one like it’s their last.

A noble concept.

(more…)

INDIANAPOLIS — The first words out of Jordan Hulls’ mouth talked about rebounding.

Standing outside his team’s locker room after a season-ending 73-58 loss to Northwestern, the question was posed to Indiana’s young guard: What did you learn from this season?

“We can be a great rebounding team,” Hulls said. “We came together, we have lots to improve upon, but I feel like we got a lot better as the season went on.”

Down the stretch run last year, during that record-setting losing streak and through the mounting blowouts, it began to feel as though the Hoosiers had maxed out their potential for that season. Overmatched and undermanned every night, Indiana reached a point where players were physically and, perhaps, mentally worn down to such a degree that both the means and the end of each game became thoroughly predictable.

This season looked that way too, for awhile. After a strong December and January, marked by wins over the likes of Pittsburgh, Michigan and Minnesota, the Hoosiers disappeared, losing 11 in a row in mostly-forgettable fashion. Fans wanted to give up. Some of us in the media (me, mostly) wanted to let go. Even players, at times, appeared as if their hearts and heads just couldn’t align well enough to give another win-worthy effort.

The Senior Day win over Northwestern disproved that. And Thursday’s loss, deceptively large, sort of said the same.

I was in this building a year ago when, against a talented-but-not-unstoppable Penn State squad, No. 11-seed Indiana basically rolled over. The Hoosiers just looked too tired, too worn down, too short of confidence to mount a significant challenge against any Big Ten opponent.

What positives could one take from such regular, predictable, heavy losing? I don’t think it’s fair to say that this time around.

(more…)

Many of you have your gripes about IU’s defense, and it’s justifiable. Many of you have gripes about IU’s offense. That, too, is justifiable. For the purposes of this post, I’m going to dig into some specifics on both sides of the ball (though, now that I look through this thing, it’s really just the offense), and seek to find a clearer understanding on why this team has lost eight straight Big Ten games.

Ready, set, go.

Start here.

Thanks to the Big Ten Geeks, here’s a scatter plot of offensive and defensive efficiency in the Big Ten as of yesterday:

Yes, not only is IU worst in the Big Ten offensively, as its only scoring about .93-.94 points per possession, but its second to last in defensive efficiency, allowing about 1.11 points per possession. If you want to know why IU has lost eight straight Big Ten games, you don’t have to look any further than these two numbers. When you aren’t scoring as much as your opponents, and you aren’t defending them well either, it’s sort of hard to get over the hump, ya dig?

When will they crack 60?

Let’s get visual, visual again. Via Statsheet, here’s IU scoring numbers:

IU has failed to eclipse the 60-point mark in its last four games, and barely did it in its fifth to last game — hitting 61 — in a loss to Northwestern. And pace really has nothing to do with the low amount of points IU is scoring: according to Ken Pomeroy, the Hoosiers’ adjusted pace of 68.6 possessions per game is a touch higher than the national average. They aren’t playing a slow game.

(more…)

So I know talking about the Big Ten title race is sort of like rubbing sea salt into an open wound for a lot of you right now.

But seeing as it’s actually pretty compelling right now, I thought it pertinent to get a discussion going here as to just who you all think will take home regular-season honors this season as we hit the stretch run. Just to set the stage:

Five teams are within 1 1/2 games of first place in the league. They are, in order: Michigan State, Purdue, Ohio State, Illinois and Wisconsin. There are still games left to play between said contenders:

+ Michigan State: Ohio State, at Purdue.
+ Purdue: Michigan State, Illinois.
+ Ohio State: at Michigan State, Illinois.
+ Illinois: at Purdue, at Ohio State, Wisconsin.
+ Wisconsin: at Illinois.

Given the remaining schedule and the way things stand right now, a couple of things jump out. First, Wisconsin seems to have the easiest run in, with games left against Minnesota, Indiana and Iowa, but the Badgers are also that team 1 1/2 games out.

Purdue has won eight straight, including at Michigan State and at Ohio State. The Boilers look like a team that’s figuring everything out at just the right time, as we cliched sportswriters tend to say, and their lone remaining top-five conference games are at home.

(more…)

For no reason in particular, there is an old Lincoln quote rolling around in my head today (Abraham, not continental). It comes from a message to Congress that was a precursor to the Emancipation Proclamation, when Lincoln penned the words “the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present.”

Now, I’m still not entirely sure what that means, but it’s been rolling around in my head for the last few hours, so I just thought I’d get it out there.

Like most (if not all) of you, I watched at least some portion of the sound beating IU took at Wisconsin on Saturday. I was unable to watch from stem to stern, but I got the gist — not enough offense, not enough defense, not enough points, not enough hustle, not enough of anything for anyone to really find positives in anything but the final buzzer and those brief moments when it slipped from your mind that there was a game yesterday at all.

Now, it’s been suggested, in this space and in others, that I, specifically, am too easy on Tom Crean, too forgiving of the Hoosiers’ plethora of shortcomings as this season slowly turns the way of last.

But the truth is, folks, I understand. I really do. I understand how hard it is to watch this team play, and struggle as it does. There’s a standard Indiana fans expect, and it’s not being met.

And I know that for many of you, that standard isn’t measured solely with banners or wins-per-season averages, but simply with hard work, teamwork and commitment. The majority of you have (at least, I think you have) bought into what Tom Crean is selling — the rebuilding, baby steps approach that celebrates every move forward this team makes, and forgives most of its regressions.

But water will always boil when succumbing to intense heat, and so fans will become displeased when they see performances like the last three IU has managed. I’ve seen part or all of Northwestern, Ohio State and Wisconsin, and this time, I’ll agree with you, Hoosier Nation, your complaints are valid.

(more…)

Ladies and gentlemen, reasons for optimism on Saturday are not plentiful after a quick glance at the chart below:

Of course, these numbers are not the only determining factors once the ball is tossed up, but they certainly point to Wisconsin being heavily favored.

A couple of things really stand out for the Badgers: First, their turnover percentage is a ridiculous 15.5 percent, good for fourth in the country. The Hoosiers, by comparison, turn it over at a clip of 21.7 percent.

Second, Wisconsin’s defensive rebounding percentage is third nationally. Translation: Good luck getting to the offensive glass. Indiana is doing a respectable job on the offensive boards, but they’re going to need an extraordinary effort in that category to keep this competitive. That means Jeremiah Rivers and Verdell Jones really need to crash the boards.

Pomeroy is calling this a 71-53 win for Wisconsin and puts the chances of an IU win at three percent. Given Bo Ryan’s success at the Kohl Center and the fact that Wisconsin is coming off its first home loss of the season to Illinois, this prediction does not seem far fetched.

Understatement of the new year: This was not a banner Saturday-Sunday (or just Sunday, really) for many of you, and it’s probably even worse to think about the fact that, not only did IU lose at Assembly Hall north, but the Colts were undone by a former Hoosier and a former Boilermaker together.

In acknowledgment of your fragile state of mind, (and also because I don’t want an angry mob outside my apartment tonight) the references to any certain Super Bowl that may have been played in the last 48 hours will end here. But I did want to touch on the Northwestern loss for a moment, because it sparked within me some food for thought.

By now, I think it’s fair to say that we can generally agree that Verdell Jones looks like a candidate to be considered one of the Hoosiers’ team leaders next season. He’s increased his scoring by almost four points per game, he’s got a better assist-to-turnover ratio and he’s rebounding the ball better compared to last season.

More than that, Jones is one of the few Hoosiers who appears to be comfortable being a vocal leader — shots of him getting in teammates’ faces after fouls or poor decisions, or explaining things in tense situations against Minnesota would be examples of this.

I’ll also throw into the conversation the fact that, at his current pace, Jones will improve in several categories, including scoring, in Big Ten play, when competition is supposed to be tougher. In fact, his top five scoring performances have all come in conference play.

(more…)